I’ve had two relationships with women immediately go downhill after I cried in front of them. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned off any physical attraction they had to me.
I’ve discovered that emotional availability means you’re available to mirror her emotions. If she’s mad, you better get mad. If she’s sad, you better get sad.
Yes! We need a translator because what many of them say is not what they actually mean. I kept being told I was emotionally unavailable. So I started opening up more, which killed the attraction pretty quickly. What they meant was that they wanted me to listen to them and react in a way which implied I felt their feelings. Most women definitely DO NOT want a man who is in touch with his emotions or is “emotionally available.” They want to feel emotionally validated.
I’ve had two relationships with women immediately go downhill after I cried in front of them. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned off any physical attraction they had to me.
Can absolutely confirm this, myself, on a personal level.
Never let them see you genuinely vulnerable unless you want to drive them away, or want that to be weaponized against you at some point in the future. Sometimes even both, but never neither.
Only ever provide curated vulnerabilities that offer of themselves no true vulnerability, but satisfies any desire they may have to see vulnerability in you. Like being distressed at the sight of an unknown dead dog on the side of the road, for example. Clean, simple, controllable, and superficial.
Violate this tenet at your own psychological risk.
I’m not saying it’s right, just, or how it should be,
What makes it infinitely more worse is that almost all women fully and absolutely deny this happens, even when behaving exactly like this.
It’s why such near-ubiquitous behaviour - and women’s hypocritical denial of its existence - is widely documented within both redpill and blackpill writings, and is one of the core reasonings behind MGTOW.
Such overwhelmingly predictable behaviours are what make those philosophies so devastatingly effective and compelling long before anything even mildly misogynistic crops up… after all, facts and evidence that survive tests of disproof speak volumes. These philosophies would have no reason to exist if behaviours and double standards like this weren’t everywhere, and all it takes for a man to see them properly is for their societal brainwashing to be disrupted.
It’s how “toxic masculinity” is forced upon men against their will.
Do we want to be sensitive and vulnerable? Sure!
Do we want partners that can accept that sensitivity and vulnerability? Of course!!
But when the vast majority of women do not do as they say, or say as they do, the calculus becomes massively brutal and clear-cut: either cram that shit down to where it will never see the light of day, or see it emotionally/sexually revolt our partner and possibly even make them leave.
Yes! It’s intentionally used to invoke blame. Foremost by implying that some list of bad behaviours is only or primarily displayed by men, and secondly by implying that it is the fault of men (often read as all men) when they exhibit these behaviours. I would much rather we just call it toxic behaviour. Both sexes are capable of violence, jealousy, etc. “Toxic masculinity” merely ensures half of the people one is speaking to switch off and might even take the opposite side of the discussion because it’s really offensive.
I’ve had two relationships with women immediately go downhill after I cried in front of them. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned off any physical attraction they had to me.
Those women need to grow up.
I’ve discovered that emotional availability means you’re available to mirror her emotions. If she’s mad, you better get mad. If she’s sad, you better get sad.
Yes! We need a translator because what many of them say is not what they actually mean. I kept being told I was emotionally unavailable. So I started opening up more, which killed the attraction pretty quickly. What they meant was that they wanted me to listen to them and react in a way which implied I felt their feelings. Most women definitely DO NOT want a man who is in touch with his emotions or is “emotionally available.” They want to feel emotionally validated.
Can absolutely confirm this, myself, on a personal level.
Never let them see you genuinely vulnerable unless you want to drive them away, or want that to be weaponized against you at some point in the future. Sometimes even both, but never neither.
Only ever provide curated vulnerabilities that offer of themselves no true vulnerability, but satisfies any desire they may have to see vulnerability in you. Like being distressed at the sight of an unknown dead dog on the side of the road, for example. Clean, simple, controllable, and superficial.
Violate this tenet at your own psychological risk.
This is the way of things.
I’m not saying it’s right, just, or how it should be, but in my experience, yes, this.
What makes it infinitely more worse is that almost all women fully and absolutely deny this happens, even when behaving exactly like this.
It’s why such near-ubiquitous behaviour - and women’s hypocritical denial of its existence - is widely documented within both redpill and blackpill writings, and is one of the core reasonings behind MGTOW.
Such overwhelmingly predictable behaviours are what make those philosophies so devastatingly effective and compelling long before anything even mildly misogynistic crops up… after all, facts and evidence that survive tests of disproof speak volumes. These philosophies would have no reason to exist if behaviours and double standards like this weren’t everywhere, and all it takes for a man to see them properly is for their societal brainwashing to be disrupted.
I’ll be honest, I can’t imagine not being able to cry in front of my partner. It sounds depressive.
It’s how “toxic masculinity” is forced upon men against their will.
Do we want to be sensitive and vulnerable? Sure!
Do we want partners that can accept that sensitivity and vulnerability? Of course!!
But when the vast majority of women do not do as they say, or say as they do, the calculus becomes massively brutal and clear-cut: either cram that shit down to where it will never see the light of day, or see it emotionally/sexually revolt our partner and possibly even make them leave.
TBH I think “toxic masculinity” is a shitty term for the concept. It feels like calling forced female gender roles “toxic femininity”.
Yes! It’s intentionally used to invoke blame. Foremost by implying that some list of bad behaviours is only or primarily displayed by men, and secondly by implying that it is the fault of men (often read as all men) when they exhibit these behaviours. I would much rather we just call it toxic behaviour. Both sexes are capable of violence, jealousy, etc. “Toxic masculinity” merely ensures half of the people one is speaking to switch off and might even take the opposite side of the discussion because it’s really offensive.
It sounds depressing because it is.